Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Conservative Vision of Health Care Reform Wins the Day

It is a measure of the political environment of the United States that a proposition as basic as trying to improve health care coverage for the millions of uninsured has unleashed a firestorm of controversy, with unusually strong opposition from people who stand to directly benefit from the reform. In this county, some on the Christian Right are praying that their fellow Americans be denied an opportunity to have better health care.

It is a testimony to the toxic power of media ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that they can so poison the atmosphere of political dialogue that people have spent months arguing over myths and distortions, with very little understanding of what the reform bills actually are trying to do and what the consequences of action—or inaction—will be.

What strikes me, as we see the Senate bill do exactly what many political insiders long predicted it would do—lose the public option—is how conservative health care reform is turning out to be. If the Senate bill passes and the final legislation mirrors its current proposals—which is not certain, but still likely—we will have what should be a conservative’s dream health care reform law.

It is still a private system. It has no large government plan. It reduces the deficit. It provides subsidies to health insurance plans to cover the uninsured (which is the only realistic way to solve this problem, if you refuse to consider a government option). It gives the drug manufacturers what they want. It doesn’t force physicians to deal with a new government bureaucracy.

Certainly it doesn’t please everyone. All those groups and many more have found reasons to criticize the bill. But it would be wrong to be willfully blind to how much this reform tries to meet all the various stakeholders half way.

In today’s political realities, of course, that’s not good enough. Willful blindness is all the rage. The bill is too conservative for Howard Dean, so he wants to tear it up and start over. It’s too restrictive for the health plans, so they oppose it. And of course, if it comes from the Democrats and Obama, the Fox News world must reflexively hate it.

What the Fox News world doesn’t realize is, they’ve won. If they really believe what they say: that they in fact DO want to reform health care, but they want to do it without the government taking over the health care system, then they have won.

But what they say and what they really want are obviously two different things. Their real opposition is to letting the Democrats get credit for fixing the county’s most pressing domestic problem. It is, to use a cliché, politics as usual.

I’ve heard, over and over again, the talking points: conservatives want to reform health care, but it should include tort reform. It should allow health plans to sell insurance over state borders. It shouldn’t explode the deficit. It should empower doctors and patients to make decisions, not the government.

Well, that last one—as nonsensical as it is, since the government was never going to intrude on medical decisions in the way that reform opponents suggested—should be satisfied by the death of the public option. The sell-insurance-over-state-borders idea is part of the Senate bill. The CBO has scored both the Senate and House bill as reducing, not increasing, the deficit. Tort reform is another idea that has merit; however, the state that has done the most in the area of tort reform is Texas: a state with one of the highest rates of uninsurance as well as the most out-of-control health care cost increases. So much for that silver bullet.

The point is, conservative ideas have been co-opted by the reform bills much more than conservatives are willing to admit. The exception is tort reform, and that, by the examples we’ve seen, is not going to make that much of a difference.

But overall, a conservative approach to reforming health care is exactly what we’re looking at. The fact is, conservatives have won this round. And really, if they would realize it and support health care reform, we’d all be better off. But they won’t realize it, and they will keep trying to go down a path that will damage the country and its future, to the bitter end.

Let me be clear in what I’m trying to say. I don’t care if some on the left see this as a sell-out or defeat of some principled ideal (single payer). I support addressing the problems we have with health care delivery in the country. If that means a conservative approach, so be it. It’s a step in the right direction. The Senate bill is very much a step in the right direction. But in its basic approach and philosophical framework, this is not a liberal reform bill.

It is a conservative one.

6 comments:

Wellescent Health Blog said...

The health bill is conservative in many aspects, but some of the protections that it offers like preventing insurers from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions is definitely on the more liberal side. While not perfect, the bill does make some important changes to the health care system and allows for the option of amendments in the future if the reform bill is passed.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. said...

You say that the conservatives 'won'. I'm not sure that anyone has won. It's hard to call the senate version conservative with its higher taxes and absence of tort reform. Despite the favorable CBO estimates, we all know that the effort will be more expensive than they say. The plans have no real cost controls in place. The public won't tolerate restrictions on their care as evidenced by the recent USPSTF fiasco. www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

The Tall Guy said...

I tend to agree with the fivethirtyeight guy... this bill is a whole lot better than nothing, but only about halfway to something as good as a single payer system. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/insidious-myth-of-reconciliation.html
The watered down version of the public option was a bit of a red herring.

Anonymous said...

Wow, comments! They are appreciated, thanks. My view on tort reform is mentioned in the post: I'm for it, but I don't see the evidence that it is a real solution to rising HC costs. Still, it should be part of the discussion, I agree. And I don't see a way to have health care reform without someone footing the bill, so higher taxes on somebody is probably inevitable. There's just no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. As for cost control, I think there's quite a bit of it in the bill; whether those measures will be as effective as we'd all like is certainly debatable. Tall Guy, check out Eric Black's MinnPost article on how 6 of 10 DFL candidates for Gov. support single payer. Kind of surprising.
Izzy

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.